CA2597888A1 - Movement disorder monitoring - Google Patents
Movement disorder monitoring Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CA2597888A1 CA2597888A1 CA002597888A CA2597888A CA2597888A1 CA 2597888 A1 CA2597888 A1 CA 2597888A1 CA 002597888 A CA002597888 A CA 002597888A CA 2597888 A CA2597888 A CA 2597888A CA 2597888 A1 CA2597888 A1 CA 2597888A1
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- patient
- test
- tests
- motor
- limited time
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Classifications
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
- A61B5/00—Measuring for diagnostic purposes; Identification of persons
- A61B5/103—Detecting, measuring or recording devices for testing the shape, pattern, colour, size or movement of the body or parts thereof, for diagnostic purposes
- A61B5/11—Measuring movement of the entire body or parts thereof, e.g. head or hand tremor, mobility of a limb
- A61B5/1124—Determining motor skills
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
- A61B5/00—Measuring for diagnostic purposes; Identification of persons
- A61B5/16—Devices for psychotechnics; Testing reaction times ; Devices for evaluating the psychological state
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
- A61B5/00—Measuring for diagnostic purposes; Identification of persons
- A61B5/40—Detecting, measuring or recording for evaluating the nervous system
- A61B5/4076—Diagnosing or monitoring particular conditions of the nervous system
- A61B5/4082—Diagnosing or monitoring movement diseases, e.g. Parkinson, Huntington or Tourette
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
- G16H—HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR THE HANDLING OR PROCESSING OF MEDICAL OR HEALTHCARE DATA
- G16H10/00—ICT specially adapted for the handling or processing of patient-related medical or healthcare data
- G16H10/20—ICT specially adapted for the handling or processing of patient-related medical or healthcare data for electronic clinical trials or questionnaires
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
- G16H—HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR THE HANDLING OR PROCESSING OF MEDICAL OR HEALTHCARE DATA
- G16H20/00—ICT specially adapted for therapies or health-improving plans, e.g. for handling prescriptions, for steering therapy or for monitoring patient compliance
- G16H20/70—ICT specially adapted for therapies or health-improving plans, e.g. for handling prescriptions, for steering therapy or for monitoring patient compliance relating to mental therapies, e.g. psychological therapy or autogenous training
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
- G16H—HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR THE HANDLING OR PROCESSING OF MEDICAL OR HEALTHCARE DATA
- G16H40/00—ICT specially adapted for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities; ICT specially adapted for the management or operation of medical equipment or devices
- G16H40/60—ICT specially adapted for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities; ICT specially adapted for the management or operation of medical equipment or devices for the operation of medical equipment or devices
- G16H40/63—ICT specially adapted for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities; ICT specially adapted for the management or operation of medical equipment or devices for the operation of medical equipment or devices for local operation
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
- G16H—HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR THE HANDLING OR PROCESSING OF MEDICAL OR HEALTHCARE DATA
- G16H40/00—ICT specially adapted for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities; ICT specially adapted for the management or operation of medical equipment or devices
- G16H40/60—ICT specially adapted for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities; ICT specially adapted for the management or operation of medical equipment or devices for the operation of medical equipment or devices
- G16H40/67—ICT specially adapted for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities; ICT specially adapted for the management or operation of medical equipment or devices for the operation of medical equipment or devices for remote operation
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
- A61B5/00—Measuring for diagnostic purposes; Identification of persons
- A61B5/0002—Remote monitoring of patients using telemetry, e.g. transmission of vital signals via a communication network
- A61B5/0015—Remote monitoring of patients using telemetry, e.g. transmission of vital signals via a communication network characterised by features of the telemetry system
- A61B5/0022—Monitoring a patient using a global network, e.g. telephone networks, internet
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
- A61B5/00—Measuring for diagnostic purposes; Identification of persons
- A61B5/72—Signal processing specially adapted for physiological signals or for diagnostic purposes
- A61B5/7235—Details of waveform analysis
- A61B5/7264—Classification of physiological signals or data, e.g. using neural networks, statistical classifiers, expert systems or fuzzy systems
Abstract
A test battery (10) for patients having fluctuating movement disorder, e.g.
Parkinson's disease, comprises both a motor test section (17) and a patient diary collection section (19) collecting data representing patient subjective experiences. The test battery (10) further comprises a scheduler (20), which is arranged to restrict operation of the motor test section (17) and the patient diary collection section (19) to a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals. This restriction in time provides an association in time between the two types of tests, as well as a possibility for timing the test intervals dependent on e.g. the medication schedule or the daily activity schedule. The limited time intervals are preferably shorter than or equal to one hour, and preferably there is at least one limited time interval each 24 hours. The test battery (10) is preferably implemented as a portable device, enabling monitoring under home environment conditions.
Parkinson's disease, comprises both a motor test section (17) and a patient diary collection section (19) collecting data representing patient subjective experiences. The test battery (10) further comprises a scheduler (20), which is arranged to restrict operation of the motor test section (17) and the patient diary collection section (19) to a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals. This restriction in time provides an association in time between the two types of tests, as well as a possibility for timing the test intervals dependent on e.g. the medication schedule or the daily activity schedule. The limited time intervals are preferably shorter than or equal to one hour, and preferably there is at least one limited time interval each 24 hours. The test battery (10) is preferably implemented as a portable device, enabling monitoring under home environment conditions.
Description
MOVEMENT DISORDER MONITORING
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention relates in general to the field of assistance devices and methods for persons having fluctuating movement disorder diseases, and in particular to monitoring devices and methods for collecting data associated with fluctuating movement disorder.
BACKGROUND
Parkinsonian patients under treatment typically present a short-term fluctuation of disease status. "Short-term" is in the present disclosure intended to indicate changes occurring within a couple of hours. Within a period of a few hours, a patient can experience sub periods of an "off' state, where the patient is stiff and slow in his movements and sometimes presents shaking motions. Within the same period, the patient may also have sub periods of "normal" state, where the patient responds more or less as a non-parkinsonian person. Finally, also during the same period, the patient can have sub periods of "dyskinetic" state, where involuntary movements and abnormal softness is experienced. The patient changes between these states depending on e.g. amount and type of medication, physical activity, mental activity and food intake. The response to medication is extremely individual, and any tuning of the amount and type of medication as well as the means for distribution, has to be performed on a case-by-case basis. A general object of the medication is typically to give the patients as long "normal"
periods as possible, minimizing both "dyskinetic" and "off' periods.
There are a number of different prior-art methods for testing patients with movement disorders, for example advanced parkinsonian patients. Motor tests for parkinsonian symptoms focus, as the name indicates, on a motion pattern of a patient. Different approaches have been proposed, e.g. using accelerometers, specialised hardware, standard keyboard tapping and spiral drawing on a graphic tablet connected to a PC. The different approaches have been developed to be applied for testing different aspects of the disease.
As an example, in [1] motor tests, such as motor speed tests, finger tapping tests etc are disclosed. In [2], motor disorders of patients, for instance parkinsonian patients, are examined by e.g. a spiral test, where a patient is requested to follow a spiral by the finger.
Cognitive impairment is common in movement disorders and will be given high weight in the coming version of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). As an example, in [3], apparatuses and methods for cognitive tests aimed for neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's disease are disclosed. A small portable unit is controlled by a keyboard, mouse, joystick etc., to enable inputs from a patient on cognitive tests. These investigations could be used for diagnosing neurological pathology, as well as for monitoring recovery from or maintenance or progression of neurological pathology.
Patient home diaries, both on paper and palmtop computers, have been successfully used with fluctuating parkinsonian patients in clinical studies.
A patient is requested to continuously fill in a patient diary by answering a set of questions concerning his conditions. One study is presented in [4].
Compliance with paper diaries have been shown extremely low in pain patients, see [5]. Another study [6] showed good compliance with an electronic diary for Parkinson patients.
Determining treatment outcome and follow-up of patients is a complicated task. Long-time progression can be tracked in non-fluctuating patients by repeating single measurements or observations, such as indicated e.g. in [3].
However, short-term fluctuations ruin the accuracy of such approaches. In general, single or a few scattered observations will not give full information on what state a patient is normally in, how much the state varies and how much time that is spent in different states. Continuous observations by medical staff require hospitalisation which is expensive and may not be representative to the condition in the home environment.
Moreover, further analysis of the data in [6] has revealed that the diary answers did not correlate with motor ratings performed hourly by neurologists. Thus, there are aspects of the state which are not captured by the diaries.
SUMMARY
A general problem with prior art methods and devices for monitoring of neurological diseases is that they are not particularly well adapted to the particular needs for patients exhibiting short-term fluctuating movement disorder. A further problem is that measurements performed by different approaches do not generally correlate. Follow-up with diary only will be biased by cognitive and emotional conditions, as well as changed expectations and memory problems. Follow-up with motor tests only will be biased by motivation, learning effects and a large variation of test scores between individuals in the normal population, unrelated to disease state An object of the present invention is to provide devices and methods for improving monitoring of fluctuating movement disorders. A further object of the present invention is to provide devices and methods enabling monitoring of short term fluctuations. Another further object of the present invention is to provide devices and methods giving a more general description of a patient having fluctuating movement disorder. A yet further object is to provide an improved evaluation approach for spiral tests. It is also a further object of the present invention to provide for evaluation of effects of events such as medicine doses, food intake, exercise etc. It is also yet a further object of the present invention to provide for possibilities of individual calibration of test results.
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention relates in general to the field of assistance devices and methods for persons having fluctuating movement disorder diseases, and in particular to monitoring devices and methods for collecting data associated with fluctuating movement disorder.
BACKGROUND
Parkinsonian patients under treatment typically present a short-term fluctuation of disease status. "Short-term" is in the present disclosure intended to indicate changes occurring within a couple of hours. Within a period of a few hours, a patient can experience sub periods of an "off' state, where the patient is stiff and slow in his movements and sometimes presents shaking motions. Within the same period, the patient may also have sub periods of "normal" state, where the patient responds more or less as a non-parkinsonian person. Finally, also during the same period, the patient can have sub periods of "dyskinetic" state, where involuntary movements and abnormal softness is experienced. The patient changes between these states depending on e.g. amount and type of medication, physical activity, mental activity and food intake. The response to medication is extremely individual, and any tuning of the amount and type of medication as well as the means for distribution, has to be performed on a case-by-case basis. A general object of the medication is typically to give the patients as long "normal"
periods as possible, minimizing both "dyskinetic" and "off' periods.
There are a number of different prior-art methods for testing patients with movement disorders, for example advanced parkinsonian patients. Motor tests for parkinsonian symptoms focus, as the name indicates, on a motion pattern of a patient. Different approaches have been proposed, e.g. using accelerometers, specialised hardware, standard keyboard tapping and spiral drawing on a graphic tablet connected to a PC. The different approaches have been developed to be applied for testing different aspects of the disease.
As an example, in [1] motor tests, such as motor speed tests, finger tapping tests etc are disclosed. In [2], motor disorders of patients, for instance parkinsonian patients, are examined by e.g. a spiral test, where a patient is requested to follow a spiral by the finger.
Cognitive impairment is common in movement disorders and will be given high weight in the coming version of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). As an example, in [3], apparatuses and methods for cognitive tests aimed for neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's disease are disclosed. A small portable unit is controlled by a keyboard, mouse, joystick etc., to enable inputs from a patient on cognitive tests. These investigations could be used for diagnosing neurological pathology, as well as for monitoring recovery from or maintenance or progression of neurological pathology.
Patient home diaries, both on paper and palmtop computers, have been successfully used with fluctuating parkinsonian patients in clinical studies.
A patient is requested to continuously fill in a patient diary by answering a set of questions concerning his conditions. One study is presented in [4].
Compliance with paper diaries have been shown extremely low in pain patients, see [5]. Another study [6] showed good compliance with an electronic diary for Parkinson patients.
Determining treatment outcome and follow-up of patients is a complicated task. Long-time progression can be tracked in non-fluctuating patients by repeating single measurements or observations, such as indicated e.g. in [3].
However, short-term fluctuations ruin the accuracy of such approaches. In general, single or a few scattered observations will not give full information on what state a patient is normally in, how much the state varies and how much time that is spent in different states. Continuous observations by medical staff require hospitalisation which is expensive and may not be representative to the condition in the home environment.
Moreover, further analysis of the data in [6] has revealed that the diary answers did not correlate with motor ratings performed hourly by neurologists. Thus, there are aspects of the state which are not captured by the diaries.
SUMMARY
A general problem with prior art methods and devices for monitoring of neurological diseases is that they are not particularly well adapted to the particular needs for patients exhibiting short-term fluctuating movement disorder. A further problem is that measurements performed by different approaches do not generally correlate. Follow-up with diary only will be biased by cognitive and emotional conditions, as well as changed expectations and memory problems. Follow-up with motor tests only will be biased by motivation, learning effects and a large variation of test scores between individuals in the normal population, unrelated to disease state An object of the present invention is to provide devices and methods for improving monitoring of fluctuating movement disorders. A further object of the present invention is to provide devices and methods enabling monitoring of short term fluctuations. Another further object of the present invention is to provide devices and methods giving a more general description of a patient having fluctuating movement disorder. A yet further object is to provide an improved evaluation approach for spiral tests. It is also a further object of the present invention to provide for evaluation of effects of events such as medicine doses, food intake, exercise etc. It is also yet a further object of the present invention to provide for possibilities of individual calibration of test results.
The above objects are achieved by devices and methods according to the enclosed patent claims. In general words, a test battery comprises both a motor test section and a p atient diary collection s ection. The motor test section is arranged for supporting motor tests and for collecting data representing results of the motor tests. The patient diary collection section is arranged for collecting data representing patient subjective experiences. The test battery further comprises a scheduler, which is arranged to restrict operation of the motor test section and the patient diary collection section to a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals. This restriction in time provides an association in time between the two types of tests, as well as a possibility for timing the test intervals dependent on e.g. the medication schedule or the daily activity schedule. The limited time intervals are preferably shorter than or equal 'to one hour, and preferably there is at least one limited time interval each 24 hours. For parkinsonian patients, at least four limited time interval each 24 hours are to prefer. The predetermined limited time intervals can preferably be event driven, i.e. the intervals can be pre-defined relative to a certain event, such as e.g. medicine or food intake, physical exercise etc. In preferred embodiments, the test battery also comprises cognitive test means and/or psychometric measurement means.
The test battery is preferably implemented as a portable device, enabling monitoring under home environment conditions.
In further preferred embodiments, the test battery comprises test evaluation means arranged to evaluate the results of the motor tests. Over each test period, a summary of how much time that has been spent in different states and how the states varied is presented. The test battery may also comprise data processing means arranged to classify a momentary state of a patient performing the motor tests and providing the patient subjective experiences, preferably implemented as a fuzzy rule-based expert system,. e.g. a Sugeno-style fuzzy inference system [11]. The data processing means may also comprise means for calibrating the classification for each patient individually, by utilising calibration sessions, where test results can be correlated with a gold standard classification of motor state, e.g. using adaptive neuro-fuzzy technology [12].
Spiral test evaluation is preferably performed utilising entropy values of drawing velocities. Multi-Scale Entropy analysis (MSE) with a Sample Entropy (SampEn) measure is one preferred evaluation [8], [9].
One advantage with the present invention is that the combination of patient diary and motor tests and possibly also cognitive tests and/or psychometric measurements gives new possibilities for interpreting evolution of data, which cannot be provided by each test separately. The time synchronization of the test ensures that the same state of disease is monitored. Other advantages with the present invention is that the scheduling of preferably several pre-planned test occasions daily gives a reliable tool to follow even short-term fluctuations, thereby evaluating e.g. different treatments.
Advantages of this test setup are that it enables provision of information about different states in.short -term fluctuating patients in order to:
1. Evaluate effects of different treatments in clinical practice and research.
2. Follow up treatments and disease progression.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The invention, together with further objects and advantages thereof, may best be understood by making reference to the following description taken together with the accompanying drawings, in which:
FIG. 1A & B are block schemes of data processing and communication systems in which devices according to the present invention advantageously can be used;
FIG. 2 is a block scheme of main parts of an embodiment of a device according to the present invention; and FIG. 3A & B are flow diagrams of main steps of embodiments of methods according to the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The present invention as claimed does not concern any diagnosing method.
The patients that are subjects for the present invention are already diagnosed having a fluctuating movement disorder, and typically receive medication therefore. The presence of such a disorder is instead a prerequisite of the need of the present invention. The present invention as claimed does neither comprise any method of treatment, since there is in the present claim no subject matter connected to any definite decisions about treatment. The main part of the present invention instead concerns the procedure of obtaining different measures possible to be associated with patient states, i.e.
a pure data collection procedure ensuring the quality of the measurement&. In one aspect of the invention, a subsequent primary evaluation gives data that indeed may be used for differing purposes. One possible use is pure monitoring of a patient progression, a "surveillance". This surveillance may comprise provision of processed data supporting evaluation of different treatments and doses in a certain patient. Another possible use can be collection of statistics for scientific purposes, whereby the collected data is not used at all in connection with the targeted patient in any respect. A third use could be as a decision support for selecting suitable candidates for certain treatments, which are to be further investigated and evaluated. The methods and devices of the present invention can also be used to provide feed-back information to the patient, e.g. as an objective indication of the actual result of a single medication dose.
Prior-art methods for providing test results have been shown to present results of different kinds that not always are well correlated to each other.
Typically, most motor tests are relatively well compatible with each other, but when e.g. comparing with diary questions, the results are not obvious to incontestably analyse and explain. Possible reasons can be several.
The test battery is preferably implemented as a portable device, enabling monitoring under home environment conditions.
In further preferred embodiments, the test battery comprises test evaluation means arranged to evaluate the results of the motor tests. Over each test period, a summary of how much time that has been spent in different states and how the states varied is presented. The test battery may also comprise data processing means arranged to classify a momentary state of a patient performing the motor tests and providing the patient subjective experiences, preferably implemented as a fuzzy rule-based expert system,. e.g. a Sugeno-style fuzzy inference system [11]. The data processing means may also comprise means for calibrating the classification for each patient individually, by utilising calibration sessions, where test results can be correlated with a gold standard classification of motor state, e.g. using adaptive neuro-fuzzy technology [12].
Spiral test evaluation is preferably performed utilising entropy values of drawing velocities. Multi-Scale Entropy analysis (MSE) with a Sample Entropy (SampEn) measure is one preferred evaluation [8], [9].
One advantage with the present invention is that the combination of patient diary and motor tests and possibly also cognitive tests and/or psychometric measurements gives new possibilities for interpreting evolution of data, which cannot be provided by each test separately. The time synchronization of the test ensures that the same state of disease is monitored. Other advantages with the present invention is that the scheduling of preferably several pre-planned test occasions daily gives a reliable tool to follow even short-term fluctuations, thereby evaluating e.g. different treatments.
Advantages of this test setup are that it enables provision of information about different states in.short -term fluctuating patients in order to:
1. Evaluate effects of different treatments in clinical practice and research.
2. Follow up treatments and disease progression.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The invention, together with further objects and advantages thereof, may best be understood by making reference to the following description taken together with the accompanying drawings, in which:
FIG. 1A & B are block schemes of data processing and communication systems in which devices according to the present invention advantageously can be used;
FIG. 2 is a block scheme of main parts of an embodiment of a device according to the present invention; and FIG. 3A & B are flow diagrams of main steps of embodiments of methods according to the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The present invention as claimed does not concern any diagnosing method.
The patients that are subjects for the present invention are already diagnosed having a fluctuating movement disorder, and typically receive medication therefore. The presence of such a disorder is instead a prerequisite of the need of the present invention. The present invention as claimed does neither comprise any method of treatment, since there is in the present claim no subject matter connected to any definite decisions about treatment. The main part of the present invention instead concerns the procedure of obtaining different measures possible to be associated with patient states, i.e.
a pure data collection procedure ensuring the quality of the measurement&. In one aspect of the invention, a subsequent primary evaluation gives data that indeed may be used for differing purposes. One possible use is pure monitoring of a patient progression, a "surveillance". This surveillance may comprise provision of processed data supporting evaluation of different treatments and doses in a certain patient. Another possible use can be collection of statistics for scientific purposes, whereby the collected data is not used at all in connection with the targeted patient in any respect. A third use could be as a decision support for selecting suitable candidates for certain treatments, which are to be further investigated and evaluated. The methods and devices of the present invention can also be used to provide feed-back information to the patient, e.g. as an objective indication of the actual result of a single medication dose.
Prior-art methods for providing test results have been shown to present results of different kinds that not always are well correlated to each other.
Typically, most motor tests are relatively well compatible with each other, but when e.g. comparing with diary questions, the results are not obvious to incontestably analyse and explain. Possible reasons can be several.
One possible explanation is that the different types of tests target different aspects of a patient. Motor test have in general a more objective appearance, being connected to physiological functioning of a patient. Diary questions are instead targeting more subjective aspects of a human being. Here, an intrinsic discrepancy may occur, since the physical and mental condition may not always be in perfect agreement with each other. Motor tests are believed to be more insensitive e.g. to environmental conditions such as if the test is performed at home or at a hospital. However, different levels of mental stress or motivation may indeed influence the test results.
A combination of diary questions and motor tests will therefore not only provide more data to analyse, but will also, as a synergetic effect, give inputs for a cross evaluation. A high score at a motor test, when at the same time having a low own state assessment, may be evaluated in a different manner compared to the same score made when the own assessment was high. By co-evaluating results of both diary questions and motor tests, completely different analyses may be performed compared to performing the two test types just side by side, more or less independently from each other. The combination of the test methods thus provides a synergetic effect compared with a pure addition of the individual benefits.
By such evaluation, other effects may also be taken into account. In the case of certain motor tests, repeated tests comprising the same type of tasks will eventually give a learning effect to the patient. It is thus natural that results of a motor test improve by time, even if the actual physiological status is unchanged, just by a simple learning procedure. In other tests, the demands on the patient to always improve the results may instead lead to the opposite result. Such effects are typically not of primary interest when evaluating e.g.
the result of a medication, and may be reduced by co-processing motor test results to answers on diary questions.
A combination of diary questions and motor tests will therefore not only provide more data to analyse, but will also, as a synergetic effect, give inputs for a cross evaluation. A high score at a motor test, when at the same time having a low own state assessment, may be evaluated in a different manner compared to the same score made when the own assessment was high. By co-evaluating results of both diary questions and motor tests, completely different analyses may be performed compared to performing the two test types just side by side, more or less independently from each other. The combination of the test methods thus provides a synergetic effect compared with a pure addition of the individual benefits.
By such evaluation, other effects may also be taken into account. In the case of certain motor tests, repeated tests comprising the same type of tasks will eventually give a learning effect to the patient. It is thus natural that results of a motor test improve by time, even if the actual physiological status is unchanged, just by a simple learning procedure. In other tests, the demands on the patient to always improve the results may instead lead to the opposite result. Such effects are typically not of primary interest when evaluating e.g.
the result of a medication, and may be reduced by co-processing motor test results to answers on diary questions.
Most patients have a tendency to increase their expectations e.g. at the beginning of a new medication. This may lead to answers to the diary questions that are more positive than motivated physiologically. For instance, when starting a medication, every small improvement may be experienced by the patient as a huge relief, rating the condition much higher than what is objectively motivated. However, with time, the patient gets used to the medication and its effects, and the expectations may be damped with time. A correlation with e.g. motor tests may in such cases give indications on such adjustments of subjective reference level.
By this, it is obvious that both motor tests and diary questioning are advantageous to perform, substantially at the same time, or at least during the same disease state. At the same time, 'the time dimension is also of crucial importance, since long-term trends in the relations between motor test results and diary question answers may reveal systematic errors as well as completely new information. A problem when predicting outcome for treatments using statistical methods based on baseline levels is the regression to the mean [10]. To avoid this, repeated baseline measurements are required and this can be accomplished with the test battery of the present invention.
In the general field of neurological diseases, many different test methods are proposed. However, diseases presenting short-term fluctuations of movement disorder, such as e.g. advanced Parkinson's disease, put further restrictions to the test methods. This means that tests operable on general neurological diseases will not be the optimum choice when focussing on short-term fluctuations of movement disorders. The most obvious characteristic is the time scale of the fluctuations. A parkinsonian patient may very well pass all three states of "off', "normal" and "dyskinesia" within a few hours. It is therefore crucial that all tests are performed essentially at the same time, so they reflect the same state of the patient. It is also of crucial importance that a suitable phase of the fluctuation is targeted. Such timing is typically very dependent on the type of evaluation that is going to be performed.
By this, it is obvious that both motor tests and diary questioning are advantageous to perform, substantially at the same time, or at least during the same disease state. At the same time, 'the time dimension is also of crucial importance, since long-term trends in the relations between motor test results and diary question answers may reveal systematic errors as well as completely new information. A problem when predicting outcome for treatments using statistical methods based on baseline levels is the regression to the mean [10]. To avoid this, repeated baseline measurements are required and this can be accomplished with the test battery of the present invention.
In the general field of neurological diseases, many different test methods are proposed. However, diseases presenting short-term fluctuations of movement disorder, such as e.g. advanced Parkinson's disease, put further restrictions to the test methods. This means that tests operable on general neurological diseases will not be the optimum choice when focussing on short-term fluctuations of movement disorders. The most obvious characteristic is the time scale of the fluctuations. A parkinsonian patient may very well pass all three states of "off', "normal" and "dyskinesia" within a few hours. It is therefore crucial that all tests are performed essentially at the same time, so they reflect the same state of the patient. It is also of crucial importance that a suitable phase of the fluctuation is targeted. Such timing is typically very dependent on the type of evaluation that is going to be performed.
The fluctuations of the state of movement disorder of e.g. Parkinson's disease may depend on many things. The type and timing of medication will of course influence the patient state considerably, as well as the method for distributing the medicament. In a typical case, a patient will be "off' before the medication occasion, while the highest probability of a "dyskinesia" state, will be at a certain time after the medication took place. There are also unpredictable fluctuations. The results of tests will therefore be highly dependent on the actual occasion when it was performed. The patient state may also be strongly affected by mental and/or physical activity or simply by the daily routines, e.g.
food intake. It is therefore of crucial importance that the test occasions are appropriately selected. Events can be documented in the test battery and trigger a test sequence.
One possibility is to connect the test occasion to a certain time of the day.
For instance, tests may be performed between 08:00-09:00, 12:00-13:00, 16:00-17:00 and 20:00-21:00, respectively, every day. Another possibility would be to perform the tests event-triggered, i.e. at times which are pre-determined relative to some other event. One example would be to perform the tests one hour after each medication occasion. In this case, the invention could be used to assess the impact of each event.
The schedule of testing may be planned depending on the purpose of the investigation. If a mean response or a long-time stability to a certain medication is to be investigated, a few tests every day during one or a couple of weeks may be appropriate. However, if the short-term (within-day) fluctuations are to be investigated, frequent measures have to be performed.
A possible schedule could e.g. be once every 15 minutes during the first two hours after each medication occasion.
According to the present invention, devices and methods are presented, which ensures an appropriate timing of motor tests and diary questions. In the described embodiments, a portable test battery device is presented as an example of the implementation.
food intake. It is therefore of crucial importance that the test occasions are appropriately selected. Events can be documented in the test battery and trigger a test sequence.
One possibility is to connect the test occasion to a certain time of the day.
For instance, tests may be performed between 08:00-09:00, 12:00-13:00, 16:00-17:00 and 20:00-21:00, respectively, every day. Another possibility would be to perform the tests event-triggered, i.e. at times which are pre-determined relative to some other event. One example would be to perform the tests one hour after each medication occasion. In this case, the invention could be used to assess the impact of each event.
The schedule of testing may be planned depending on the purpose of the investigation. If a mean response or a long-time stability to a certain medication is to be investigated, a few tests every day during one or a couple of weeks may be appropriate. However, if the short-term (within-day) fluctuations are to be investigated, frequent measures have to be performed.
A possible schedule could e.g. be once every 15 minutes during the first two hours after each medication occasion.
According to the present invention, devices and methods are presented, which ensures an appropriate timing of motor tests and diary questions. In the described embodiments, a portable test battery device is presented as an example of the implementation.
Fig. 1A illustrates an embodiment of a data handling system 1 in which a device according to the present invention can be used. A central data server 2 is connected to a number of terminals 3. The central data server 2 may be implemented as one device or may be implemented in a distributed manner.
The terminals 3 are available for physicians, researchers or other persons involved in taking care of the patients having fluctuating movement disorders. The terminals 3 can be used to access software 5 for evaluation of tests and a central database 6 of the central data server 2. The information concerning test programs, such as instructions about time schedules can be provided to the central data server 2, and data associated with results of patient tests can be retrieved from the central database 6.
The central data server 2 is connected to a communication system 4, capable of transmitting data to and from a number of terminals 10'. ' In this embodiment, the communication system 4 comprises an Internet network 30, to which a number of patient servers 31 are connected. The terminals 10 communicate with the patient servers 31, e.g. via wireless communication 32 such as IR communication or Bluetooth. The communication between the terminal 10 and the patient server 31 may also be provided by cables 33. In such a manner, the terminals 10 are able to communicate with the central data server 2. Typically, the terminals 10 receive instructions about test scheduling, which is discussed more in detail below. The terminals 10 typically report test results, e.g. periodically to the central data server 2.
The results may be intermediately stored at the patient server 31, and at least parts of evaluation procedures on the test results may be performed at the terminal 10 itself or at the patient server 31. The central data server may in other embodiments be the sole responsible for data evaluation and processing.
Fig. 1B illustrates an alternative embodiment of a data handling system 1 in which a device 10 according to the present invention can be used. Here the communication system 4 comprises a cellular communication system 40, in which base stations 41 are in radio contact 42 with the terminals 10. Anyone skilled in the art realises that the above systems are just two non-exclusive examples of possible configurations, and other variants are of course also possible to use. The scope of the present invention should therefore not be constricted to the particular embodiments.
Fig. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a device for monitoring of fluctuating movement disorder according to the present invention. The device 10 consists in the present embodiment of a palmtop computer which presents a patient interface 11. The patient interface 11 comprises in this embodiment a touch screen 12 and a stylus 13. The palmtop computer typically further comprises a processor 14 having software code implementing test functionality. Alternatively, or complementary, the processor 14 is arranged for interacting with the central data server 2 or the patient server 31, if any, to load test configuration data into the palmtop via computer communication arrangements, discussed in more detail further below. The test configuration data may comprise a configuration file or a data base table that is used to determine which test that is going to be performed. Texts of questions and answer alternatives as well as degree of difficulty in motor tests, cognitive tests etc can be provided. Also, as further described below, scheduling of the test can also be provided this way.
A motor test portion 15 of the processor 14 provides test configurations to the patient via the touch screen 12. The patient responds to the test configurations by touching the touch screen 12 in certain positions with the stylus 13. The position of the contact is interpreted as a test result by the motor test portion 15. The test results are stored in a local storage 16, waiting for further transmission to a central data base, c.f. Fig. 1. A motor test section 17 of the device 10 of the present embodiment comprises thereby the motor test portion 15 of the processor 14, the touch screen 12 and the pointer rod 13. The motor test section 16 is thereby arranged for supporting motor tests and for collecting data representing results of the motor tests.
The terminals 3 are available for physicians, researchers or other persons involved in taking care of the patients having fluctuating movement disorders. The terminals 3 can be used to access software 5 for evaluation of tests and a central database 6 of the central data server 2. The information concerning test programs, such as instructions about time schedules can be provided to the central data server 2, and data associated with results of patient tests can be retrieved from the central database 6.
The central data server 2 is connected to a communication system 4, capable of transmitting data to and from a number of terminals 10'. ' In this embodiment, the communication system 4 comprises an Internet network 30, to which a number of patient servers 31 are connected. The terminals 10 communicate with the patient servers 31, e.g. via wireless communication 32 such as IR communication or Bluetooth. The communication between the terminal 10 and the patient server 31 may also be provided by cables 33. In such a manner, the terminals 10 are able to communicate with the central data server 2. Typically, the terminals 10 receive instructions about test scheduling, which is discussed more in detail below. The terminals 10 typically report test results, e.g. periodically to the central data server 2.
The results may be intermediately stored at the patient server 31, and at least parts of evaluation procedures on the test results may be performed at the terminal 10 itself or at the patient server 31. The central data server may in other embodiments be the sole responsible for data evaluation and processing.
Fig. 1B illustrates an alternative embodiment of a data handling system 1 in which a device 10 according to the present invention can be used. Here the communication system 4 comprises a cellular communication system 40, in which base stations 41 are in radio contact 42 with the terminals 10. Anyone skilled in the art realises that the above systems are just two non-exclusive examples of possible configurations, and other variants are of course also possible to use. The scope of the present invention should therefore not be constricted to the particular embodiments.
Fig. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a device for monitoring of fluctuating movement disorder according to the present invention. The device 10 consists in the present embodiment of a palmtop computer which presents a patient interface 11. The patient interface 11 comprises in this embodiment a touch screen 12 and a stylus 13. The palmtop computer typically further comprises a processor 14 having software code implementing test functionality. Alternatively, or complementary, the processor 14 is arranged for interacting with the central data server 2 or the patient server 31, if any, to load test configuration data into the palmtop via computer communication arrangements, discussed in more detail further below. The test configuration data may comprise a configuration file or a data base table that is used to determine which test that is going to be performed. Texts of questions and answer alternatives as well as degree of difficulty in motor tests, cognitive tests etc can be provided. Also, as further described below, scheduling of the test can also be provided this way.
A motor test portion 15 of the processor 14 provides test configurations to the patient via the touch screen 12. The patient responds to the test configurations by touching the touch screen 12 in certain positions with the stylus 13. The position of the contact is interpreted as a test result by the motor test portion 15. The test results are stored in a local storage 16, waiting for further transmission to a central data base, c.f. Fig. 1. A motor test section 17 of the device 10 of the present embodiment comprises thereby the motor test portion 15 of the processor 14, the touch screen 12 and the pointer rod 13. The motor test section 16 is thereby arranged for supporting motor tests and for collecting data representing results of the motor tests.
A diary question section 18 of the processor 14 provides diary questions to the patient via the touch screen 12. The patient responds to the diary questions by touching the touch screen 12 in certain positions with the stylus 13. The position of the contact is interpreted as an answer by the diary question section 18. The answers are also stored in the local storage 16. A patient diary collection section 19 of the device 10 of the present embodiment comprises thereby the diary question section 18 of the processor 14, the touch screen 12 and the stylus 13. The patient diary collection section 19 is thereby arranged for collecting data representing patient subjective experiences.
The patient diary collection section 19 and the motor test section 17 comprise a patient interface 11. In the present embodiment, both sections 17, 19 utilise the same patient interface 11. However, anyone skilled in the art realises that the motor test section 17 may utilise one patient interface and the patient diary collection section 19 another.
The patient interface 11 comprises in the present embodiment a touch screen 12 and a stylus 13. However, other types of patient interfaces can also be used. For the diary questions, a screen showing the questions could be combined with physical button, used for inputting the patient answers.
Alternatively, the questions could even be provided to the patient in an audio manner, e.g. by retrieving a voice question through the loudspeakers. The patient interface for the motor tests can also be implemented differently and any prior-art approaches, such as using physical buttons to press or using a joy stick may be utilised also together with the present invention. Also for the motor tests, instructions may be given by a voice via the loudspeaker. The alternatives of this section are only intended as non-exclusive examples of possible configurations of usable patient interfaces. Therefore, the scope of the invention should not be restricted thereto.
The device 10 further comprises, according to the present invention, a scheduler 20. In the present embodiment, the scheduler 20 is implemented in the processor 14. The scheduler 20 controls the time intervals, during which the motor test section 17 and the patient diary collection section 19 can be accessed. The scheduler 20 is thereby arranged to restrict operation of the motor test section and the patient diary collection section to a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals. These predetermined limited time intervals can be event driven, i.e. determined relative a certain event, such as a time of medication, food intake, exercise etc. Such event driven time intervals will also be discussed further below.
The device 10 comprises also communication arrangements, in the present embodiment in the form of a transmitter 21 and an antenna 22 as well as a data communication interface 23. These communication arrangements are used for transmitting the collected data to a database server (c.f. Fig. 1) e.g.
via a mobile communication network and/or via data communication cables.
The transmitter 21 is thereby arranged to allow for transfer of data, e.g., data temporarily stored in the storage 16, over e.g. a radio communication system.
Such a system could e.g. be based on a mobile telephony standard or on Bluetooth technology. The data communication interface 23 is arranged for allowing the collected data to be transferred by cable, e.g. using standard USB
technology.
The communication arrangements can also be utilised for providing the device with input data. The data communication interface 23 can for instance be used e.g. as a staff interface to assign patients and possibly for period identification, i.e. setting the scheduler 20 to provide an appropriate set of predetermined limited time intervals. A trained physician or nurse may thereby remotely specify at what occasions the tests are going to be performed. Also test definitions and question texts can be provided this way.
The communication arrangements are also suitable for providing feed-back information to the patient. Patients are typically very curios about their state and may be very eager to know e.g. what the last test period results were. In particular, where the main evaluation is performed at the central data server, it is useful to provide some feed-back data to the patient, for knowing e.g. if the last medicine dose had the intended effect.
In more elaborate systems, e.g. where medication distribution is controlled by some electronic device, such medication equipment may communicate data concerning medication times and amounts of medication to the device 10, using the communication arrangements or any separate external interface 27. This can e.g. serve as input data for setting event driven predetermined limited time intervals. Such relative test periods can be utilised when evaluating the medication effects on individual medication events.
When starting the device 10 by an on j off button 24, a first screen in the test display of the touch screen is presented. This appearance of the first screen may also be provided automatically at the start of a predetermined limited time interval, preferably connected with e.g. some sound signal to catch the attention of the patient. The screen presents a button icon with the text "start diary" appears. This button is only active during the multitude of predetermined limited time intervals, as controlled by the scheduler 20. When the "start diary" button is pressed, a number of diary questions are presented, on which the patient is supposed to answer. One example of a typical question that has been used in [7] is "Have you had difficulty walking about 100 meters during the last four hours?". A number of answering alternatives are presented, such as "not able at all", "difficult", "with efforts", "pretty well", "without problems". The patient touches the touch screen, preferably by the stylus 11 at the appropriate choice. A new question is then shown, e.g. "Have you been "off' (stiffness/slowness/shakings) during the last four hours?".
Answering alternatives could then be "all the time", "most of the time", "half of the time", "a smaller part of the time" and "not at all". Alternatively, the patient could be given a graphical representation of the four hours and be asked to divide the representation into three parts, representing the amount of "off' time, "dyskinetic" time and "normal" time. To catch the momentary perceived state, a question such as "How are you feeling right now?" can be used.
The patient diary collection section 19 and the motor test section 17 comprise a patient interface 11. In the present embodiment, both sections 17, 19 utilise the same patient interface 11. However, anyone skilled in the art realises that the motor test section 17 may utilise one patient interface and the patient diary collection section 19 another.
The patient interface 11 comprises in the present embodiment a touch screen 12 and a stylus 13. However, other types of patient interfaces can also be used. For the diary questions, a screen showing the questions could be combined with physical button, used for inputting the patient answers.
Alternatively, the questions could even be provided to the patient in an audio manner, e.g. by retrieving a voice question through the loudspeakers. The patient interface for the motor tests can also be implemented differently and any prior-art approaches, such as using physical buttons to press or using a joy stick may be utilised also together with the present invention. Also for the motor tests, instructions may be given by a voice via the loudspeaker. The alternatives of this section are only intended as non-exclusive examples of possible configurations of usable patient interfaces. Therefore, the scope of the invention should not be restricted thereto.
The device 10 further comprises, according to the present invention, a scheduler 20. In the present embodiment, the scheduler 20 is implemented in the processor 14. The scheduler 20 controls the time intervals, during which the motor test section 17 and the patient diary collection section 19 can be accessed. The scheduler 20 is thereby arranged to restrict operation of the motor test section and the patient diary collection section to a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals. These predetermined limited time intervals can be event driven, i.e. determined relative a certain event, such as a time of medication, food intake, exercise etc. Such event driven time intervals will also be discussed further below.
The device 10 comprises also communication arrangements, in the present embodiment in the form of a transmitter 21 and an antenna 22 as well as a data communication interface 23. These communication arrangements are used for transmitting the collected data to a database server (c.f. Fig. 1) e.g.
via a mobile communication network and/or via data communication cables.
The transmitter 21 is thereby arranged to allow for transfer of data, e.g., data temporarily stored in the storage 16, over e.g. a radio communication system.
Such a system could e.g. be based on a mobile telephony standard or on Bluetooth technology. The data communication interface 23 is arranged for allowing the collected data to be transferred by cable, e.g. using standard USB
technology.
The communication arrangements can also be utilised for providing the device with input data. The data communication interface 23 can for instance be used e.g. as a staff interface to assign patients and possibly for period identification, i.e. setting the scheduler 20 to provide an appropriate set of predetermined limited time intervals. A trained physician or nurse may thereby remotely specify at what occasions the tests are going to be performed. Also test definitions and question texts can be provided this way.
The communication arrangements are also suitable for providing feed-back information to the patient. Patients are typically very curios about their state and may be very eager to know e.g. what the last test period results were. In particular, where the main evaluation is performed at the central data server, it is useful to provide some feed-back data to the patient, for knowing e.g. if the last medicine dose had the intended effect.
In more elaborate systems, e.g. where medication distribution is controlled by some electronic device, such medication equipment may communicate data concerning medication times and amounts of medication to the device 10, using the communication arrangements or any separate external interface 27. This can e.g. serve as input data for setting event driven predetermined limited time intervals. Such relative test periods can be utilised when evaluating the medication effects on individual medication events.
When starting the device 10 by an on j off button 24, a first screen in the test display of the touch screen is presented. This appearance of the first screen may also be provided automatically at the start of a predetermined limited time interval, preferably connected with e.g. some sound signal to catch the attention of the patient. The screen presents a button icon with the text "start diary" appears. This button is only active during the multitude of predetermined limited time intervals, as controlled by the scheduler 20. When the "start diary" button is pressed, a number of diary questions are presented, on which the patient is supposed to answer. One example of a typical question that has been used in [7] is "Have you had difficulty walking about 100 meters during the last four hours?". A number of answering alternatives are presented, such as "not able at all", "difficult", "with efforts", "pretty well", "without problems". The patient touches the touch screen, preferably by the stylus 11 at the appropriate choice. A new question is then shown, e.g. "Have you been "off' (stiffness/slowness/shakings) during the last four hours?".
Answering alternatives could then be "all the time", "most of the time", "half of the time", "a smaller part of the time" and "not at all". Alternatively, the patient could be given a graphical representation of the four hours and be asked to divide the representation into three parts, representing the amount of "off' time, "dyskinetic" time and "normal" time. To catch the momentary perceived state, a question such as "How are you feeling right now?" can be used.
Answering alternatives could be "very off', "moderately off, "slightly off, "quite well", "slightly dyskinetic", "moderately dyskinetic" and "very dyskinetic".
A number of such questions, typically seven selected questions and one or two questions on mental mood are presented to the patient. Typically, 5 alternatives are given for the answers or the patient could himself make an indication on a scale. However, the questions appearing in the diary part of the tests are only possible to be answered once in each time interval. So, when all questions have been answered, it is no longer possible to activate any "start diary button" again until next time interval. There is also preferably a timeout functionality if a sequence of questions has not been completed. When all questions are answered, the screen instead presents a "start motor test"
button, or alternatively automatically switches to the motor tests.
A first example of a motor test can be a standard tapping test. The screen presents two coloured squares and the patient is instructed to tap on the squares in an alternating manner as fast as possible during e.g. 60 seconds.
The areas corresponding to the squares are then active for registering taps during 60 seconds from the first tap. Absence of audio or visual triggers assures that pure motor function is measured. Estimates of speed (number of taps/min), rhythmicity (standard deviation of tap times) and spatial accuracy (number or missed or double clicked squares) are calculated and stored.
A second example is tapping with increasing speed. In such a test, two squares are presented at the screen, one red and one grey. The colour switches according to a predetermined schedule having an increasing speed.
The patient is instructed to tap the squares alternately when the red colouring shifts. Also this test is performed e.g. during 60 seconds. There will possibly be a sound connected to movement of the red colouring, e.g. by means of a loudspeaker 25. The patient should try to tap all red squares.
Number of correct and incorrect taps are calculated and stored. Possibly, a break-point in the relation speed vs. proportion of incorrect taps could be recorded. Another alternative is to record an n:th failure time, i.e. the time to the n:th incorrect tap.
A third example is a random chase test. A screen with four squares is presented. One of the squares is red and the colouring shifts in a random manner between the squares. The patient is instructed to tap all red squares as fast as possible. The test starts when the first red button is tapped and continues for e.g. 60 seconds. When a red button is tapped, another button (randomly selected) will turn red. The same data as in the standard tapping test is calculated and stored, preferably together with an identification of the square that was tapped. This is a semi-cognitive test which will assess the function between eye and hand.
A fourth example is a spiral test, which is found to be a test type giving much useful information. A spiral is presented on the screen. The spiral is preferably an Archimedes spiral following the definition of:
r=a=O
x = r =cos(a - r) y=Y=sin(a=r) in polar and Cartesian coordinates, where r = x2 + y2 and tan(o)=y.
x The constant a defines the spiral and is adjusted such that the spiral fits into the screen on three rounds about the origin. The patient is instructed to follow the pre-drawn spiral from the centre outwards with the stylus as accurate and fast as possible. The position and times for the stylus are recorded. For calculations, original coordinates are transformed to polar form with the origin placed in the centre of the spiral. The drawing velocity in r, O, x and y directions are obtained by differentiation. In a standard evaluation of the result, the drawing velocities in different directions are Fourier transformed and frequency-filtered to detect involuntary movements of different frequencies as described in [13]. This test will thus mainly assess involuntary movements such as high frequency (5-10 Hz) tremor and lower frequency (1-5 Hz) dyskinesias. Standard deviations of frequency filtered drawing velocities could also be of use as well as average of corresponding mean accelerations for each direction.
Quality validation of drawn spirals is preferably done according to the following rules:
1. The number of coordinates must be larger than some threshold value.
2. Maximum radial distance must be larger than some threshold value.
3. Maximum gap length between consecutive turns must be smaller than some threshold value.
4. The mean square deviation from the pre-drawn spiral must be smaller than some threshold value.
We have found that spiral test also advantageously can be evaluated using entropy approaches. Preliminary work indicates that entropy is lower in shaky spirals. Entropy values of drawing velocities are preferably calculated with use of the Multi-Scale Entropy (MSE) method with the sample entropy (SampEn) measure.
Motor tests and diary questions target different aspects of a patient. In order to assess validity of self assessments in the diary section, cognitive tests could also be of use. Cognitive tests as such are available in prior-art.
Perception, attention and concentration are the main subjects for cognitive tests. Disability in these aspects is related to some movement disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, and cognitive test results will provide useful background information on how to interpret diary answers. There are many cognitive test suites on the market and any type of tests would be possible to incorporate in the test battery of the present invention. For instance, the Mini Mental State Exam, which is frequently used to test dementia in elderly, has one test where the test person is asked to draw the hands on a clock so it shows ten past ten. This test can be generalised and added to the present test battery such that the hands of a clock can be moved. by the patient, e.g. by pointing by the stylus on the touch screen presenting a clock, to indicate different times. A text or voice asks the patient to set the clock to indicate a certain time. The time to be set is randomly changed each time the test is performed.
Another widely used cognitive test is pattern matching. This is implemented in the present battery such that the screen shows a selection of different symbols in one or two rows. One of these symbols is shown again in a box below and the patient is asked to tap the matching symbol in a row above.
The symbol in the box will be randomly selected each time the test is performed. The device registers preferably question identification, time, given answer and correct answer.
Since perception, attention and concentration in many cases also influence motor test results as well as answers to diary questions, cognitive test results can advantageously be used in an integrated analysis with motor tests and diary questions. Cognitive test results may e.g. also contribute to interpret long-term variations as described more in detail above.
The motivation of a patient may also influence the test results. Observations concerning mental mood and attitude can thereby give additional information about how to interpret the results of other tests. Questions about mental mood at the time for performing test may e.g. be included in the diary questions, as described further above. However, also other psychometric tests may be useful. A simple arrangement for measuring the skin resistance may for instance give indications of stress levels of the patient.
The MSE method is also advantageously applied for evaluation of the motor tests as well as of psychometric measurements and diary answers for the whole period.
When the tests and questions are performed, the results have to be compiled and processed. Such tasks can be performed at different stages in the system. A first compilation of test results is preferably performed already in the portable palmtop computer. Compilation and evaluation can also be performed at different stages in the communication chain to the central data server, e.g. at a patient server (c.f. Fig. 1A) or at the central data server.
If compilation and/or evaluation is performed early in the reporting chain, the amount of data that is necessary to transmit will be decreased. However, it is also possible that the device collecting the data sends all primary data directly to the central data server before any data treatment at all is performed.
Compilation of test and question data is preferably performed by applying a scaling of measurements of each test parameter. There might be different optimal scales for the answers/results in different tests. The single question answers and test results can then be weighted together, e.g. using a fuzzy logic inference system to a common scale, in the Parkinson case e.g. having the grades [-3,+3], where -3 represents severe off, 0 is normal and +3 is severe dyskinesia. The limits for the classification based on e.g. "high", "low"
etc. are to a high degree "fuzzy". Fuzzy classification of test parameters can be utilised by use of fuzzy logic membership functions. The meaning of "high", "low" etc. will then be defined e.g. after finding a distribution of test results for reference sample groups of patients and healthy individuals of the typical age.
A number of such questions, typically seven selected questions and one or two questions on mental mood are presented to the patient. Typically, 5 alternatives are given for the answers or the patient could himself make an indication on a scale. However, the questions appearing in the diary part of the tests are only possible to be answered once in each time interval. So, when all questions have been answered, it is no longer possible to activate any "start diary button" again until next time interval. There is also preferably a timeout functionality if a sequence of questions has not been completed. When all questions are answered, the screen instead presents a "start motor test"
button, or alternatively automatically switches to the motor tests.
A first example of a motor test can be a standard tapping test. The screen presents two coloured squares and the patient is instructed to tap on the squares in an alternating manner as fast as possible during e.g. 60 seconds.
The areas corresponding to the squares are then active for registering taps during 60 seconds from the first tap. Absence of audio or visual triggers assures that pure motor function is measured. Estimates of speed (number of taps/min), rhythmicity (standard deviation of tap times) and spatial accuracy (number or missed or double clicked squares) are calculated and stored.
A second example is tapping with increasing speed. In such a test, two squares are presented at the screen, one red and one grey. The colour switches according to a predetermined schedule having an increasing speed.
The patient is instructed to tap the squares alternately when the red colouring shifts. Also this test is performed e.g. during 60 seconds. There will possibly be a sound connected to movement of the red colouring, e.g. by means of a loudspeaker 25. The patient should try to tap all red squares.
Number of correct and incorrect taps are calculated and stored. Possibly, a break-point in the relation speed vs. proportion of incorrect taps could be recorded. Another alternative is to record an n:th failure time, i.e. the time to the n:th incorrect tap.
A third example is a random chase test. A screen with four squares is presented. One of the squares is red and the colouring shifts in a random manner between the squares. The patient is instructed to tap all red squares as fast as possible. The test starts when the first red button is tapped and continues for e.g. 60 seconds. When a red button is tapped, another button (randomly selected) will turn red. The same data as in the standard tapping test is calculated and stored, preferably together with an identification of the square that was tapped. This is a semi-cognitive test which will assess the function between eye and hand.
A fourth example is a spiral test, which is found to be a test type giving much useful information. A spiral is presented on the screen. The spiral is preferably an Archimedes spiral following the definition of:
r=a=O
x = r =cos(a - r) y=Y=sin(a=r) in polar and Cartesian coordinates, where r = x2 + y2 and tan(o)=y.
x The constant a defines the spiral and is adjusted such that the spiral fits into the screen on three rounds about the origin. The patient is instructed to follow the pre-drawn spiral from the centre outwards with the stylus as accurate and fast as possible. The position and times for the stylus are recorded. For calculations, original coordinates are transformed to polar form with the origin placed in the centre of the spiral. The drawing velocity in r, O, x and y directions are obtained by differentiation. In a standard evaluation of the result, the drawing velocities in different directions are Fourier transformed and frequency-filtered to detect involuntary movements of different frequencies as described in [13]. This test will thus mainly assess involuntary movements such as high frequency (5-10 Hz) tremor and lower frequency (1-5 Hz) dyskinesias. Standard deviations of frequency filtered drawing velocities could also be of use as well as average of corresponding mean accelerations for each direction.
Quality validation of drawn spirals is preferably done according to the following rules:
1. The number of coordinates must be larger than some threshold value.
2. Maximum radial distance must be larger than some threshold value.
3. Maximum gap length between consecutive turns must be smaller than some threshold value.
4. The mean square deviation from the pre-drawn spiral must be smaller than some threshold value.
We have found that spiral test also advantageously can be evaluated using entropy approaches. Preliminary work indicates that entropy is lower in shaky spirals. Entropy values of drawing velocities are preferably calculated with use of the Multi-Scale Entropy (MSE) method with the sample entropy (SampEn) measure.
Motor tests and diary questions target different aspects of a patient. In order to assess validity of self assessments in the diary section, cognitive tests could also be of use. Cognitive tests as such are available in prior-art.
Perception, attention and concentration are the main subjects for cognitive tests. Disability in these aspects is related to some movement disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, and cognitive test results will provide useful background information on how to interpret diary answers. There are many cognitive test suites on the market and any type of tests would be possible to incorporate in the test battery of the present invention. For instance, the Mini Mental State Exam, which is frequently used to test dementia in elderly, has one test where the test person is asked to draw the hands on a clock so it shows ten past ten. This test can be generalised and added to the present test battery such that the hands of a clock can be moved. by the patient, e.g. by pointing by the stylus on the touch screen presenting a clock, to indicate different times. A text or voice asks the patient to set the clock to indicate a certain time. The time to be set is randomly changed each time the test is performed.
Another widely used cognitive test is pattern matching. This is implemented in the present battery such that the screen shows a selection of different symbols in one or two rows. One of these symbols is shown again in a box below and the patient is asked to tap the matching symbol in a row above.
The symbol in the box will be randomly selected each time the test is performed. The device registers preferably question identification, time, given answer and correct answer.
Since perception, attention and concentration in many cases also influence motor test results as well as answers to diary questions, cognitive test results can advantageously be used in an integrated analysis with motor tests and diary questions. Cognitive test results may e.g. also contribute to interpret long-term variations as described more in detail above.
The motivation of a patient may also influence the test results. Observations concerning mental mood and attitude can thereby give additional information about how to interpret the results of other tests. Questions about mental mood at the time for performing test may e.g. be included in the diary questions, as described further above. However, also other psychometric tests may be useful. A simple arrangement for measuring the skin resistance may for instance give indications of stress levels of the patient.
The MSE method is also advantageously applied for evaluation of the motor tests as well as of psychometric measurements and diary answers for the whole period.
When the tests and questions are performed, the results have to be compiled and processed. Such tasks can be performed at different stages in the system. A first compilation of test results is preferably performed already in the portable palmtop computer. Compilation and evaluation can also be performed at different stages in the communication chain to the central data server, e.g. at a patient server (c.f. Fig. 1A) or at the central data server.
If compilation and/or evaluation is performed early in the reporting chain, the amount of data that is necessary to transmit will be decreased. However, it is also possible that the device collecting the data sends all primary data directly to the central data server before any data treatment at all is performed.
Compilation of test and question data is preferably performed by applying a scaling of measurements of each test parameter. There might be different optimal scales for the answers/results in different tests. The single question answers and test results can then be weighted together, e.g. using a fuzzy logic inference system to a common scale, in the Parkinson case e.g. having the grades [-3,+3], where -3 represents severe off, 0 is normal and +3 is severe dyskinesia. The limits for the classification based on e.g. "high", "low"
etc. are to a high degree "fuzzy". Fuzzy classification of test parameters can be utilised by use of fuzzy logic membership functions. The meaning of "high", "low" etc. will then be defined e.g. after finding a distribution of test results for reference sample groups of patients and healthy individuals of the typical age.
Multivariate scaling of test parameters can also be applied, i.e. more than one test result may be utilised when determining the value of a parameter. A
combination of e.g. answers to diary questions and motor test can easily be performed already in the compilation step. For instance, a"bad" test result may be caused either by an "off' condition or a"dyskinetic condition. If a bad test result, e.g. low tapping speed, occurs when the patient is "dyskinetic", the multivariate parameter could be set to +2, while the -2 is reserved for a low tapping speed test result occurring when the patient is "off' according to his own assessment. The compilation of individual test results to more global state variables is preferably performed using a fuzzy rule-based expert system, preferably a Sugeno type fuzzy inference system (FIS) [ 11 ] using expert rules.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the compiled and evaluated test results are further processed for classifying a momentary state of the patient performing the tests. Such processing is preferably performed utilizing an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) [12]. This requires a calibration period with gold standard classification e.g. on the [-3, +3]
scale.
Various aspects of patient state are preferably specified and assessed, e.g.
in the following state variables:
- Overall Patient State (OPS) based on diary questions and motor tests (and further on psychometric measures and cognitive tests, if any);
- Perceived State (PS) based on diary questions only;
- Motor Test State (MTS) based on motor tests only;
- Cognitive State (CS) based on cognitive tests only;
- Mental Mood & Attitude (MMAS) based on diary question and psychometric measurements;
These state variables can be assessed at different time scales, e.g. per occasion (j=1,m); per day (i=1,n) and per assessment period (e.g. week, n=7).
combination of e.g. answers to diary questions and motor test can easily be performed already in the compilation step. For instance, a"bad" test result may be caused either by an "off' condition or a"dyskinetic condition. If a bad test result, e.g. low tapping speed, occurs when the patient is "dyskinetic", the multivariate parameter could be set to +2, while the -2 is reserved for a low tapping speed test result occurring when the patient is "off' according to his own assessment. The compilation of individual test results to more global state variables is preferably performed using a fuzzy rule-based expert system, preferably a Sugeno type fuzzy inference system (FIS) [ 11 ] using expert rules.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the compiled and evaluated test results are further processed for classifying a momentary state of the patient performing the tests. Such processing is preferably performed utilizing an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) [12]. This requires a calibration period with gold standard classification e.g. on the [-3, +3]
scale.
Various aspects of patient state are preferably specified and assessed, e.g.
in the following state variables:
- Overall Patient State (OPS) based on diary questions and motor tests (and further on psychometric measures and cognitive tests, if any);
- Perceived State (PS) based on diary questions only;
- Motor Test State (MTS) based on motor tests only;
- Cognitive State (CS) based on cognitive tests only;
- Mental Mood & Attitude (MMAS) based on diary question and psychometric measurements;
These state variables can be assessed at different time scales, e.g. per occasion (j=1,m); per day (i=1,n) and per assessment period (e.g. week, n=7).
When assessment is performed per test occasion, m per day, this leads to the following set of momentary states:
OPS(i,j), PS(i,j), MTS(i,j), CS(i,j), MMAS(i,j); i=1, n and j=1,m.
For typical values m=4 and n=7 there will be mxn=28 values for each of the state variables.
The momentary states are calculated e.g. as:
OPS = Fops (all test parameters) PS = Fps (diary question 1; diary question 2; ...) MTS = FMTS (tap speed; rhythmicity; proportion of correct taps; break-point; failure time; MSE values; area; drawing velocities and accelerations) CS = Fcs (proportion of correct matches; ...) MMAS = FMMAS (diary question; psychometric measures) The various 'functions' FoPs Fps FMTs Fcs FmMAs can be expressed by Sugeno type FISs [11] defined in consensus with expert physicians.
The primary momentary OPS, PS, and MTS state variables can be expressed on the scale [-3, +3] where:
-3 is 'very off -2 is 'moderately off -1 is 'slightly off 0 is 'normal function' 1 is 'slightly dyskinetic' 2 is 'moderately dyskinetic' 3 is 'very dyskinetic' Examples of using a zero-order Sugeno style FIS:
OPS(i,j), PS(i,j), MTS(i,j), CS(i,j), MMAS(i,j); i=1, n and j=1,m.
For typical values m=4 and n=7 there will be mxn=28 values for each of the state variables.
The momentary states are calculated e.g. as:
OPS = Fops (all test parameters) PS = Fps (diary question 1; diary question 2; ...) MTS = FMTS (tap speed; rhythmicity; proportion of correct taps; break-point; failure time; MSE values; area; drawing velocities and accelerations) CS = Fcs (proportion of correct matches; ...) MMAS = FMMAS (diary question; psychometric measures) The various 'functions' FoPs Fps FMTs Fcs FmMAs can be expressed by Sugeno type FISs [11] defined in consensus with expert physicians.
The primary momentary OPS, PS, and MTS state variables can be expressed on the scale [-3, +3] where:
-3 is 'very off -2 is 'moderately off -1 is 'slightly off 0 is 'normal function' 1 is 'slightly dyskinetic' 2 is 'moderately dyskinetic' 3 is 'very dyskinetic' Examples of using a zero-order Sugeno style FIS:
If tapping_speed is HIGH and proportion_missed is LOW then MTS is 0 If tapping_speed is VERY LOW then MTS is -3 If spiral_entropy is VERY_LOW then MTS is +3 Antecedents of all these rules will get a truth value between 0 and 1. 'And' and 'or' operators can be compiled using 'min' and 'max' membership values, respectively.
The end result will be a weighted average:
MTS = sum (truth_value(rule(i))*MTS(rule(i))) / sum (truth_value(rule(i))) i=1,2, ... all rules.
This MTS value is then rounded to nearest integer For OPS we take diary answers into account:
If sign(MTS) = sign(PS) then OPS=weighted_average (MTS,PS) else flag conflict end if (An alternative is to use a FIS even in this case).
When assessment is performed per day, m occasions, this leads to the following set of 'daily' states:
dOPS(i) _ OPS(i, j), i = 1, n j=1,m dPS(i) PS(i, j), i=1, n j=1,m dMTS(i) =Y, M?'S(i, j), i= l, n j=1,m dCS(i)=yCS(i, j), i= l, n j=1,m dMMAS(i) MMAS(i, j), i=1, n j=1,m Y, stands for a combination of the m momentary state values, for instance, in the Parkinson case, calculated fraction off-time / good time / dyskinetic time, mean squared deviations, maximum, median and minimum values, frequencies of each state [-3, +3] The off-time can e.g. be defined as time spent in -3 and -2 states, the good time as time spent in -1, 0 and +1 states and the dyskinetic time as time spent in +2 and +3 states.
When assessment is performed per assessment period (n days, e.g. one week with nxm momentary states), this leads to the following set of 'period' states:
pOPS = EdOPS(i) f=1,n pPS dPS(i) i=1,n pMTS = E dMTS(i) e=l,n pCS = EdCS(i) i=1,n pMMAS dMMAS(i) i=1,n where E stands for a combination of the n'daily' state values.
Following storage in the database, a server program presents summaries for the whole test period:
- Overall Patient State (pOPS) - Perceived State (pPS) - Motor Test State (pMTS) - Cognitive State (pCS) - Mental Mood 8s Attitude State (pMMAS) with calculated values of "fraction good time", "fraction off-time", "fraction dyskinetic time", Mean Squared Deviation, and median, maximum, minimum values.
Options for further display and inspection by physicians and nurses:
1) Daily and momentary patient state values;
2) Summaries for questions in - histograms with "fraction time" or frequency of answers (e.g. scale 1-5) for the whole period, or for each occasion j=1,m such as 'morning' state etc. over the whole period;
- time series of all answers (e.g. scale 1-5) for the whole period, with results of ANOVA (within-day, between-day and total variation) and of Multiscale Entropy analysis;
3) Median, max and min values, and frequency histograms for:
- test completion time;
- speed, rhythmicity and accuracy of the tapping tests;
- number of correct and incorrect taps and time to failure for the speed tapping test;
- scores for tremor and dyskinesia, or MSE curve profiles, according to the spiral test;
4) Summaries of number of completed and expected test sequences, numbers of valid and invalid spirals, and numbers of correct and incorrect answers to cognitive tests;
These summaries are tabulated and presented in graphical form comparing different treatment periods in a web interface for treating staff.
The data processing preferably comprises functionality for individual calibration. The purpose of calibration is to acquire a test result that can be comparable between patients. Since different patients experience symptoms differently, answers on diary questions may differ significantly between patients. Some patients have a high tolerance level and always give answers close to a medium value. Other patients react very much on every tendency of symptoms, and will often indicate extreme answers. Also motor tests are somewhat influenced by individual patient response. Some patients may cover symptoms in a more efficient manner than other patients. In order to compare results from different patients, some sort of calibration is preferred.
With use of a built-in camera 26, (Fig. 2) of the hand-computer or an external camera, film sequences may be recorded while the patient performs well defined motor exercises, e.g. walking. These recordings could then be transmitted to a central server and rated by a trained physician or nurse in order to obtain some kind of pragmatic calibration standard. Such rated film recordings performed during an initial period of calibration in direct connection before or after the various tests could then be used to establish a multivariate calibration function, to be used for transformation of the set of motor function test parameters from each test occasion into a provisional gold standard score value, e.g. on the [-3, +3] treatment response scale (TRS) [7].
The calibration function can be established with use of e.g. Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference Systems (ANFIS), (also known as Adaptive-Network-Based Fuzzy Inference Systems) training of the already defined FISs. An alternative to video-recording in the home could be to use the test battery at the hospital at the same time as when doing gold standard ratings on the TRS
scale. These measures are then used as gold standards for an individual calibration.
In Fig. 3A, a flow diagram of main steps of an embodiment of a method for collecting data associated with fluctuating movement disorder according to the present invention is illustrated. The procedure starts in step 200. In step 210, a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals are determined. Answers of diary questions are collected in step 220. In step 230, motor tests are performed and in step 232, results of the motor tests are collected. In step 240, cognitive tests are performed and in step 242, results of the cognitive tests are collected. Finally, psychometric measurements are performed in step 250. The procedure ends in step 299.
In Fig. 3B, a flow diagram of main steps of an embodiment of a method for provision of data supporting evaluation of treatment of fluctuating movement disorders according to the present invention is illustrated. The procedure starts in step 300. In step 310, data are collected according to the procedure illustrated in Fig. 3A. In step 320, a multitude of momentary states of a patient are classified, based on data representing results of the data collected in step 310. In step 330, a compilation of the classified results is provided.
The procedure ends in step 399.
The embodiments described above are to be understood as a few illustrative examples of the present invention. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that various modifications, combinations and changes may be made to the embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention. In particular, different part solutions in the different embodiments can be combined in other configurations, where technically possible. The scope of the present invention is, however, defined by the appended claims.
REFERENCES
[1] US 2004/0229198 [2] US 6,454,706 [3] EP 1 122 679 [4] R.A. Hauser et. al in "Parkinson's disease home diary: Further validation and implications for clinical trials", Movement Disorders, Vol. 19, No. 12, 2004, pp. 1409-13.
The end result will be a weighted average:
MTS = sum (truth_value(rule(i))*MTS(rule(i))) / sum (truth_value(rule(i))) i=1,2, ... all rules.
This MTS value is then rounded to nearest integer For OPS we take diary answers into account:
If sign(MTS) = sign(PS) then OPS=weighted_average (MTS,PS) else flag conflict end if (An alternative is to use a FIS even in this case).
When assessment is performed per day, m occasions, this leads to the following set of 'daily' states:
dOPS(i) _ OPS(i, j), i = 1, n j=1,m dPS(i) PS(i, j), i=1, n j=1,m dMTS(i) =Y, M?'S(i, j), i= l, n j=1,m dCS(i)=yCS(i, j), i= l, n j=1,m dMMAS(i) MMAS(i, j), i=1, n j=1,m Y, stands for a combination of the m momentary state values, for instance, in the Parkinson case, calculated fraction off-time / good time / dyskinetic time, mean squared deviations, maximum, median and minimum values, frequencies of each state [-3, +3] The off-time can e.g. be defined as time spent in -3 and -2 states, the good time as time spent in -1, 0 and +1 states and the dyskinetic time as time spent in +2 and +3 states.
When assessment is performed per assessment period (n days, e.g. one week with nxm momentary states), this leads to the following set of 'period' states:
pOPS = EdOPS(i) f=1,n pPS dPS(i) i=1,n pMTS = E dMTS(i) e=l,n pCS = EdCS(i) i=1,n pMMAS dMMAS(i) i=1,n where E stands for a combination of the n'daily' state values.
Following storage in the database, a server program presents summaries for the whole test period:
- Overall Patient State (pOPS) - Perceived State (pPS) - Motor Test State (pMTS) - Cognitive State (pCS) - Mental Mood 8s Attitude State (pMMAS) with calculated values of "fraction good time", "fraction off-time", "fraction dyskinetic time", Mean Squared Deviation, and median, maximum, minimum values.
Options for further display and inspection by physicians and nurses:
1) Daily and momentary patient state values;
2) Summaries for questions in - histograms with "fraction time" or frequency of answers (e.g. scale 1-5) for the whole period, or for each occasion j=1,m such as 'morning' state etc. over the whole period;
- time series of all answers (e.g. scale 1-5) for the whole period, with results of ANOVA (within-day, between-day and total variation) and of Multiscale Entropy analysis;
3) Median, max and min values, and frequency histograms for:
- test completion time;
- speed, rhythmicity and accuracy of the tapping tests;
- number of correct and incorrect taps and time to failure for the speed tapping test;
- scores for tremor and dyskinesia, or MSE curve profiles, according to the spiral test;
4) Summaries of number of completed and expected test sequences, numbers of valid and invalid spirals, and numbers of correct and incorrect answers to cognitive tests;
These summaries are tabulated and presented in graphical form comparing different treatment periods in a web interface for treating staff.
The data processing preferably comprises functionality for individual calibration. The purpose of calibration is to acquire a test result that can be comparable between patients. Since different patients experience symptoms differently, answers on diary questions may differ significantly between patients. Some patients have a high tolerance level and always give answers close to a medium value. Other patients react very much on every tendency of symptoms, and will often indicate extreme answers. Also motor tests are somewhat influenced by individual patient response. Some patients may cover symptoms in a more efficient manner than other patients. In order to compare results from different patients, some sort of calibration is preferred.
With use of a built-in camera 26, (Fig. 2) of the hand-computer or an external camera, film sequences may be recorded while the patient performs well defined motor exercises, e.g. walking. These recordings could then be transmitted to a central server and rated by a trained physician or nurse in order to obtain some kind of pragmatic calibration standard. Such rated film recordings performed during an initial period of calibration in direct connection before or after the various tests could then be used to establish a multivariate calibration function, to be used for transformation of the set of motor function test parameters from each test occasion into a provisional gold standard score value, e.g. on the [-3, +3] treatment response scale (TRS) [7].
The calibration function can be established with use of e.g. Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference Systems (ANFIS), (also known as Adaptive-Network-Based Fuzzy Inference Systems) training of the already defined FISs. An alternative to video-recording in the home could be to use the test battery at the hospital at the same time as when doing gold standard ratings on the TRS
scale. These measures are then used as gold standards for an individual calibration.
In Fig. 3A, a flow diagram of main steps of an embodiment of a method for collecting data associated with fluctuating movement disorder according to the present invention is illustrated. The procedure starts in step 200. In step 210, a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals are determined. Answers of diary questions are collected in step 220. In step 230, motor tests are performed and in step 232, results of the motor tests are collected. In step 240, cognitive tests are performed and in step 242, results of the cognitive tests are collected. Finally, psychometric measurements are performed in step 250. The procedure ends in step 299.
In Fig. 3B, a flow diagram of main steps of an embodiment of a method for provision of data supporting evaluation of treatment of fluctuating movement disorders according to the present invention is illustrated. The procedure starts in step 300. In step 310, data are collected according to the procedure illustrated in Fig. 3A. In step 320, a multitude of momentary states of a patient are classified, based on data representing results of the data collected in step 310. In step 330, a compilation of the classified results is provided.
The procedure ends in step 399.
The embodiments described above are to be understood as a few illustrative examples of the present invention. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that various modifications, combinations and changes may be made to the embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention. In particular, different part solutions in the different embodiments can be combined in other configurations, where technically possible. The scope of the present invention is, however, defined by the appended claims.
REFERENCES
[1] US 2004/0229198 [2] US 6,454,706 [3] EP 1 122 679 [4] R.A. Hauser et. al in "Parkinson's disease home diary: Further validation and implications for clinical trials", Movement Disorders, Vol. 19, No. 12, 2004, pp. 1409-13.
[5] A.A. Stone, S. Shiffman, J.E. Schwartz, J.E. Broderick, M.R. Hufford, "Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries", in Control Clin.
Trials. April 2003, Vol. 24(2), pp. 182-199.
[6] D. Nyholm et. al. in "Wireless Real-Time Electronic Data Capture for Self-Assessment of Motor Function and Quality of Life in Parkinson's Disease", Movement disorders, Vol. 19, No4, 2004.
[7] D. Nyholm et al. "Duodenal levodopa infusion monotherapy vs oral polypharmacy in advanced Parkinson disease", in Neurology January 25, 2005, Vol. 64(2), pp. 216-223.
[8] M. Costa et al. "Multiscale entropy analysis of biological signals", Physical Review E 71 (2005) 021606-1 -- 021906-18.
[9] M. Costa et al. "Multiscale entropy analysis of complex physiological time series", Physical Review 89(6) (2002) 068102-1 -- 068102-4.
[10] A.G. Barnett et el. "Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it", Int. J. Epidemiol 2005; 34(1): pp. 215-20.
[11] M . Negnevitsky, "Artificial Intelligence", First edition, 2002, Pearson Education, ISBN: 0201-71159-1 pp. 112-114.
[12] M. Negnevitsky, "Artificial Intelligence", First edition, 2002, Pearson Education, ISBN: 0201-71159-1 pp 275-283.
[13] X. Liu et al. "Quantifying drug-induced dyskinesias in the arms using digitised spiral-drawing tasks.", J Neurosci Methods. 2005 May 15;144(1):47-52.
Trials. April 2003, Vol. 24(2), pp. 182-199.
[6] D. Nyholm et. al. in "Wireless Real-Time Electronic Data Capture for Self-Assessment of Motor Function and Quality of Life in Parkinson's Disease", Movement disorders, Vol. 19, No4, 2004.
[7] D. Nyholm et al. "Duodenal levodopa infusion monotherapy vs oral polypharmacy in advanced Parkinson disease", in Neurology January 25, 2005, Vol. 64(2), pp. 216-223.
[8] M. Costa et al. "Multiscale entropy analysis of biological signals", Physical Review E 71 (2005) 021606-1 -- 021906-18.
[9] M. Costa et al. "Multiscale entropy analysis of complex physiological time series", Physical Review 89(6) (2002) 068102-1 -- 068102-4.
[10] A.G. Barnett et el. "Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it", Int. J. Epidemiol 2005; 34(1): pp. 215-20.
[11] M . Negnevitsky, "Artificial Intelligence", First edition, 2002, Pearson Education, ISBN: 0201-71159-1 pp. 112-114.
[12] M. Negnevitsky, "Artificial Intelligence", First edition, 2002, Pearson Education, ISBN: 0201-71159-1 pp 275-283.
[13] X. Liu et al. "Quantifying drug-induced dyskinesias in the arms using digitised spiral-drawing tasks.", J Neurosci Methods. 2005 May 15;144(1):47-52.
Claims (38)
1. Device (10) for monitoring of fluctuating movement disorders, comprising:
motor test section (17), arranged for supporting motor tests and for collecting data representing results of said motor tests;
patient diary collection section (19), arranged for collecting data representing patient subjective experiences; and scheduler (20), arranged to restrict operation of said motor test section (17) and said patient diary collection section (19) to a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals.
motor test section (17), arranged for supporting motor tests and for collecting data representing results of said motor tests;
patient diary collection section (19), arranged for collecting data representing patient subjective experiences; and scheduler (20), arranged to restrict operation of said motor test section (17) and said patient diary collection section (19) to a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals.
2. Device according to claim 1, wherein said multitude of predetermined limited time intervals are fixed intervals during a day.
3. Device according to claim 1, wherein said multitude of predetermined limited time intervals are determined relative to a specified event.
4. Device according to any of the claims 1 to 3, wherein said predetermined limited time intervals occur at least once every 24 hours.
5. Device according to any of the claims 1 to 4, wherein said predetermined limited time intervals are shorter than 1 hour.
6. Device according to any of the claims 1 to 5, further comprising cognitive test means, arranged for supporting cognitive tests and for collecting data representing results of said cognitive tests.
7. Device according to any of the claims 1 to 6, further comprising psychometric measurement means, arranged for supporting psychometric measurements and for collecting data representing results of said psychometric measurements.
8. Device according to any of the claims 1 to 7, further comprising test evaluation means (15, 18) connected to or comprised in at least one of said motor test section (17) and said patient diary collection section (19) and arranged to evaluate said results of at least one of said motor tests and said patient subjective experiences.
9. Device according to claim 8, wherein said test evaluation means is further arranged to evaluate said results of said cognitive tests and said psychometric measurements, if any.
10. Device according to claim 8 or 9, wherein said test evaluation means (15, 18) is arranged to operate according to multiscale entropy-based measures.
11. Device according to any of the claims 1 to 10, further comprising data processing means (14) connected to or integrated with said test evaluation means (15) and said patient diary collection section (19) and arranged to classify a momentary state of a patient performing said motor tests and providing said patient subjective experiences.
12. Device according to claim 11, wherein said data processing means (14) being further arranged to base said classification of a momentary state of a patient also on said cognitive tests and/or said psychometric measurements, if any.
13. Device according to claim 11 or 12, wherein said data processing means (14) comprises a fuzzy rule-based expert system.
14. Device according to claim 13, wherein said fuzzy rule-based expert system is a Sugeno type fuzzy inference system using expert rules.
15. Device according to any of the claims 11 to 14, wherein said data processing means (14) comprises means for calibrating said classification for each individual patient.
16. Device according to claim 15, wherein said means for calibrating said classification for each individual patient is based on an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system.
17. Device according to any of the claims 1 to 16, wherein said device (10) is a portable device intended for home use.
18. System for monitoring of fluctuating movement disorders, comprising:
at least one device (10) according to any of the claims 1 to 17;
a central data server (2); and a communication system (4), interconnecting said at least one device (10) and said central data server (2).
at least one device (10) according to any of the claims 1 to 17;
a central data server (2); and a communication system (4), interconnecting said at least one device (10) and said central data server (2).
19. System according to claim 18, wherein test evaluation means (5) are comprised in at least one of said central data server (2) and said communication system (4).
20. System according to claim 18 or 19, wherein said communication system (4) is arranged for allowing transfer of data from said central data server to said at least one device (10), said data being at least one of feed-back information to the patient and data for setting of said predetermined limited time intervals for the scheduler (20), test definitions and question texts.
21. Device or system according to any of the claims 1 to 20, wherein said fluctuating movement disorders is Parkinson's disease.
22. Method for collecting data associated with fluctuating movement disorder, comprising the steps of:
performing (230) motor tests;
collecting (232) data representing results of said motor tests; and collecting (220) data representing patient subjective experiences;
whereby said steps of performing (230), collecting (232) data representing results of said motor tests and collecting (220) data representing patient subjective experiences being restricted to be performed during a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals.
performing (230) motor tests;
collecting (232) data representing results of said motor tests; and collecting (220) data representing patient subjective experiences;
whereby said steps of performing (230), collecting (232) data representing results of said motor tests and collecting (220) data representing patient subjective experiences being restricted to be performed during a multitude of predetermined limited time intervals.
23. Method according to claim 22, wherein said multitude of predetermined limited time intervals are fixed intervals during a day.
24. Method according to claim 22, wherein said multitude of predetermined limited time intervals are determined relative to a specified event.
25. Method according to any of the claims 22 to 24, wherein said predetermined limited time intervals occur at least once every 24 hours.
26. Method according to any of the claims 22 to 25, wherein said predetermined limited time intervals are shorter than 1 hour.
27. Method according to any of the claims 22 to 26, comprising the further step of performing (240) cognitive tests within said predetermined limited time intervals.
28. Method according to any of the claims 22 to 27, comprising the further step of performing (250) psychometric measurements within said predetermined limited time intervals.
29. Method according to any of the claims 22 to 28, comprising the further step of evaluating at least one of said results of said motor tests and said patient subjective experiences.
30. Method according to claim 29, wherein said step of evaluating comprises evaluation also of said results of said cognitive tests and/or said psychometric measurements, if any.
31. Method according to claim 29 or 30, wherein said step of evaluating is operated according to multiscale entropy-based measures.
32. Method for provision of data supporting evaluation of treatment of fluctuating movement disorders, comprising the steps of:
collecting data associated with fluctuating movement disorder according to any of the claims 22 to 31; and classifying (320) a multitude of momentary states of a patient performing said motor tests and providing said patient subjective experiences, based on said data representing results of said motor tests and said data representing patient subjective experiences.
collecting data associated with fluctuating movement disorder according to any of the claims 22 to 31; and classifying (320) a multitude of momentary states of a patient performing said motor tests and providing said patient subjective experiences, based on said data representing results of said motor tests and said data representing patient subjective experiences.
33. Method according to claim 32, wherein said step of classifying (320) is further based on said results of said cognitive tests and/or said psychometric measurements, if any.
34. Method according to claim 32 or 33, wherein said step of classifying (320) comprises the step of operating a fuzzy rule-based expert system.
35. Method according to claim 34, wherein said fuzzy rule-based expert system is a Sugeno type fuzzy inference system using expert rules.
36. Method according to any of the claims 32 to 35, wherein said step of classifying comprises the step of calibrating said classification for each individual patient.
37. Method according to claim 36, wherein said step of calibrating said classification for each individual patient is based on an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system.
38. Method according to any of the claims 22 to 37, wherein said fluctuating movement disorders is Parkinson's disease.
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| SE0500377-7 | 2005-02-18 | ||
| SE0500377 | 2005-02-18 | ||
| PCT/SE2006/000203 WO2006088415A1 (en) | 2005-02-18 | 2006-02-14 | Movement disorder monitoring |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA2597888A1 true CA2597888A1 (en) | 2006-08-24 |
Family
ID=36916732
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA002597888A Abandoned CA2597888A1 (en) | 2005-02-18 | 2006-02-14 | Movement disorder monitoring |
Country Status (4)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| EP (1) | EP1853166A1 (en) |
| AU (1) | AU2006214825B2 (en) |
| CA (1) | CA2597888A1 (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2006088415A1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (20)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GB0610259D0 (en) * | 2006-05-23 | 2006-07-05 | Univ Aberdeen | Apparatus and method for the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders |
| WO2008076870A2 (en) * | 2006-12-14 | 2008-06-26 | Cady Roger K | Method and system for interactive cognitive testing |
| US9895085B2 (en) | 2007-03-21 | 2018-02-20 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Measuring representational motions in a medical context |
| WO2008115555A1 (en) * | 2007-03-21 | 2008-09-25 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | Method and apparatus for measuring representational motions in a medical context |
| CA2683723C (en) | 2007-04-13 | 2016-01-05 | Nike International Ltd. | Unitary vision and coordination testing center |
| WO2008128178A1 (en) | 2007-04-13 | 2008-10-23 | Nike, Inc. | Unitary vision testing center |
| US10226171B2 (en) | 2007-04-13 | 2019-03-12 | Nike, Inc. | Vision cognition and coordination testing and training |
| EP2134246A4 (en) | 2007-04-13 | 2010-07-28 | Nike International Ltd | Unitary vision and neuro-processing testing center |
| WO2008140780A1 (en) * | 2007-05-10 | 2008-11-20 | Grigore Burdea | Periodic evaluation and telerehabilitation systems and methods |
| US9564058B2 (en) | 2008-05-08 | 2017-02-07 | Nike, Inc. | Vision and cognition testing and/or training under stress conditions |
| SE0801267A0 (en) | 2008-05-29 | 2009-03-12 | Cunctus Ab | Method of a user unit, a user unit and a system comprising said user unit |
| CN102056541B (en) | 2008-06-12 | 2014-09-24 | 阿密格德勒有限公司 | Detection of hypokinetic and/or hyperkinetic states |
| US11363982B1 (en) * | 2008-10-14 | 2022-06-21 | Great Lakes Neurotechnologies Inc. | Method and system for quantifying movement disorder symptoms |
| US8998828B2 (en) | 2009-07-09 | 2015-04-07 | Nike, Inc. | Visualization testing and/or training |
| US10085689B1 (en) * | 2010-06-18 | 2018-10-02 | Great Lakes NeuroTechnolgies Inc. | Device and method for monitoring and assessment of movement disorder symptoms |
| US10292635B2 (en) | 2013-03-01 | 2019-05-21 | Global Kinetics Pty Ltd | System and method for assessing impulse control disorder |
| WO2015131244A1 (en) | 2014-03-03 | 2015-09-11 | Global Kinetics Corporation Pty Ltd | Method and system for assessing motion symptoms |
| US11508479B2 (en) * | 2017-10-16 | 2022-11-22 | Optum, Inc. | Automated question generation and response tracking |
| NL2021316B1 (en) | 2018-07-16 | 2020-01-24 | Medical Device Dev Group B V | User device for registering disease related states of a user |
| CN113100711B (en) * | 2021-04-08 | 2021-11-16 | 南通市妇幼保健院 | Method and system for real-time tracking of health condition of parturient |
Family Cites Families (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US5911581A (en) * | 1995-02-21 | 1999-06-15 | Braintainment Resources, Inc. | Interactive computer program for measuring and analyzing mental ability |
| US7087015B1 (en) * | 2000-01-31 | 2006-08-08 | Panmedix, Inc. | Neurological pathology diagnostic apparatus and methods |
| US6454706B1 (en) * | 2000-03-02 | 2002-09-24 | The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York | System and method for clinically assessing motor function |
| US20040229198A1 (en) * | 2003-05-15 | 2004-11-18 | Cns Vital Signs, Llc | Methods and systems for computer-based neurocognitive testing |
-
2006
- 2006-02-14 WO PCT/SE2006/000203 patent/WO2006088415A1/en active Application Filing
- 2006-02-14 EP EP06716893A patent/EP1853166A1/en not_active Ceased
- 2006-02-14 CA CA002597888A patent/CA2597888A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2006-02-14 AU AU2006214825A patent/AU2006214825B2/en not_active Ceased
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| AU2006214825A1 (en) | 2006-08-24 |
| WO2006088415A1 (en) | 2006-08-24 |
| AU2006214825B2 (en) | 2011-02-03 |
| EP1853166A1 (en) | 2007-11-14 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| AU2006214825B2 (en) | Movement disorder monitoring | |
| US20220044824A1 (en) | Systems and methods to assess cognitive function | |
| US7708700B2 (en) | Training system and method for improving cognition and motor timing | |
| US8048002B2 (en) | Method for improving cognition and motor timing | |
| US20090247910A1 (en) | Method and apparatus for classification of movement states in Parkinson's disease | |
| JP2019523027A (en) | Apparatus and method for recording and analysis of memory and function decline | |
| US20220142546A1 (en) | Systems and methods for cognitive health assessment | |
| US20190206566A1 (en) | Movement disorders monitoring and treatment support system for elderly care | |
| Koçer et al. | Nintendo Wii assessment of Hoehn and Yahr score with Parkinson's disease tremor | |
| Chen et al. | COSA: Contextualized and objective system to support ADHD diagnosis | |
| Moreau et al. | Overview on wearable sensors for the management of Parkinson’s disease | |
| KR102472911B1 (en) | Digital Health Care System | |
| US11810579B2 (en) | Systems and methods for tracking biomarkers in subjects | |
| WO2020095446A1 (en) | Server system, and method and program to be implemented by server system | |
| TW202004773A (en) | System for diagnosing cognitive function for providing fitness correction program and method thereof | |
| US20220378297A1 (en) | System for monitoring neurodegenerative disorders through assessments in daily life settings that combine both non-motor and motor factors in its determination of the disease state | |
| Carissimo | Design, development and validation of an | |
| US11432773B2 (en) | Monitoring of diagnostic indicators and quality of life | |
| US20220167895A1 (en) | Method and system for testing cognition by processing the reaction of a subject to stimuli | |
| Chmielewski et al. | Sensor-based supporting mobile system Parkinson disease clinical tests utilising biomedical and RIFID technologies | |
| US20240065610A1 (en) | Systems and methods for tracking biomarkers in subjects | |
| Newton | Measuring the perceptual, physiological and environmental factors that impact stress in the construction industry | |
| US20240021313A1 (en) | System and a method for detecting and quantifying electroencephalographic biomarkers in alzheimer's disease | |
| Tönges et al. | Medical professional's viewpoint and clinical adoption | |
| KR20230011550A (en) | Customized Digital Health Care System And Method Thereof |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EEER | Examination request | ||
| FZDE | Discontinued |
Effective date: 20150130 |